Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

We need a government that works

US Capitol

Each branch of government needs to get serious about restoring the public's trust.

Andrey Denisyuk/Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

The first — and really only — order of business for the government is to solve problems beyond the grasp of a single person or a small community. In exchange for that service, we the people surrender some of our income and liberty. This grand bargain breaks down when the government decides it’s got other things to do besides take care of everything from our sewage to our space debris.

The longer the government falls short of our expectations, the more likely the people will be to opt out of their own obligations, such as voting. This dangerous tit-for-tat is hard to reverse. A less effective government sparks a less dutiful public, which makes it harder for the government to perform, and so on.


That’s precisely why the first agenda item for every politician who wins in November ought to be basic government work. For Congress, it’s time to get serious about regulating artificial intelligence. A series of performative hearings in which the celebrities of AI, such as Sam Altman, made flashy appearances on Capitol Hill have yet to generate meaningful legislation. The AI Policy Roadmap recently released by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and three other senators did little to assuage concerns that Congress is happy to let states lead on AI governance.

A handful of small bills might address specific AI issues, but — absent passage of comprehensive legislation — the public is right to question if lawmakers are taking their part of the deal seriously.

For the president, the relative tranquility of the present is the proper time to prepare for future, inevitable emergencies. The federal government’s response to Covid-19 was far from perfect. From the initial confusion over who should wear a mask and when, to prolonged and troubling efforts to quash debate over the proper response, there is tremendous room for improvement.

The nature of our interconnected and global world means that another crisis will unfortunately emerge sooner than later. Imagine the good that would come about from the president overseeing massive emergency drills in preparation of threats like the deployment of a bioweapon. Picture how much smoother the Covie response would have been if the American people had preexisting stores of emergency supplies. These efforts are flashy but they are what’s required by an effective government.

For the courts, the integration of AI into our legal system should not be left to chance. State and federal courts alike have clogged dockets and insufficient support for individuals who cannot afford a lawyer but also cannot afford to lose whatever claim brought them before the court. AI will not and cannot entirely solve those issues, but the technology should be used to the greatest extent possible to help those who too commonly find that our legal system fails to provide the justice it promises.

None of these initiatives are partisan. And all of them go to the purpose of the government: solving problems. There’s a long list of similar, basic projects that would go a long way toward making the government more effective and efficient. The longer this grows, the greater the odds of (even more) discontent and distrust. That’s why candidates across the spectrum should focus less on short-term, shiny projects and much more on what will make American lives easier both now and for decades to come.

The latter kind of project won’t get headlines on Fox or MSNBC, but it will keep the wheels of government turning, which is no small feat given decades of rust.


Read More

 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House, Washington, DC
A large white building with a fountain in front of it

We Can and Should Reform the President’s Pardon Power

On August 21, Congressman Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a report entitled “Pardons, Inc.: How Trump and His Clemency-for-Cash Racket Let White-Collar Criminals and International Drug Dealers Walk Free and Dodge Billions in Restitution Owed to Their Victims.” As the title suggests, the report documents the president’s startling abuse of his constitutional power to grant pardons and reprieves.

If that problem were limited to Trump, we might look to the ballot box to remedy it. But it is not.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

Russell Vought, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in July.

Samuel Corum/Sipa USA via AP Images

The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

In mid-July testimony before Congress, Russell Vought boasted that, as the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he’d refashioned the agency’s approach to pursuing banks and other financial companies accused of exploiting Americans — the role Congress had created for the agency after the 2008 economic crash.

Vought had spent the first 18 months of the new Trump administration trying to dismantle the bureau, much as he and other appointees had done with the U.S. Agency for International Development. At CFPB, he’d ordered mass layoffs, tried to choke off the bureau’s funding and ended the lease on its headquarters, attempting to make good on his vow to put civil servants “in trauma.” But federal courts blocked Vought’s efforts to close the CFPB, with a judge at one point saying the administration had acted with “complete disregard” for Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less